Thanks for the replies, I bought the camera and lenses off the dreaded eBay. The hood for the lens is the LH -5. I wish I could get a stationary object half as sharp as JaKob portraits, no way would I get anything near as sharp as that. I will try and upload some shots over the weekend. Seems it may be user error on my part too. I have been messing with the diopter as my glasses are a pain. I might just get the ultron to play with. I really appreciate you time and replies.
With all due respect you have the wrong lens for the job, its a very 'traditional' design similar to the Summilux, quite soft in resolution at large apertures and pretty poor at even its min focus distance never mind on 'extension tubes' to get closer than it was ever designed to do.
Better for a portrait to use a longer focal length which will cope better and give less perspective distortion of the subjects features (big nose small ears!)
If you want close up use a macro lens, if you want sharp at 1.4 its going to be a BIG lens 😯
This reminds me of the performance of the CV 35/1.2 outside the center of the frame when shot wide open. As Ron said, lots of spherical abberation with this lens, makes it difficult to nail focus even with aids. I think you'd find the CV 40/2 SL-II much easier to focus wide open, but you'll lose the overall rendering characteristics provided by the SA in the out of focus areas.
Hi thanks for the images, I bought the lens knowing it's not the sharpest etc , I wanted a fast 40mm lens that small and not overly expensive. I will use this lens for everyday shooting with portrait being the last thing I will photograph and will be my only lens bar a macro lens if I want to do close up etc. I will go and do some practice.
uscmatt99 wrote:
This reminds me of the performance of the CV 35/1.2 outside the center of the frame when shot wide open. As Ron said, lots of spherical abberation with this lens, makes it difficult to nail focus even with aids. I think you'd find the CV 40/2 SL-II much easier to focus wide open, but you'll lose the overall rendering characteristics provided by the SA in the out of focus areas.
I owned the 40/2 CV SL-II back in my Nikon DX days - it was an excellent lens and I sold it at the time to afford my D700 - should not have done that.
For me the 40/1.4 was bought because:
- It's really small in VM mount - sticks out much less than the 40/2 CV will with a Nikon to E adapter
- I can shoot it at f/2 or above to get over the wide open SA, etc., but have f/1.4 available when needed
- It shares the VM mount of with my 15/4.5-III
I'll admit I have not used mine all that much, but will so in the near future. Mechanically it is a beauty!
Lee Middleton wrote:
Hi thanks for the images, I bought the lens knowing it's not the sharpest etc ,
The CV 40/1.4 is one of the sharpest lenses I own (I have compared it against many nifty 50's). My copy is sharp wide open on the Sony A7r and tack sharp a stop down. It is also fairly contrasty. I suspect there must be sample variation with maybe newer examples of this lens performing better than older ones as I don't know what else could explain the differences in experience. The only thing "classic" with regard to rendering with this lens imo is that it has a smaller area of sharpness per F-stop versus a more modern design. By F8 and certainly F11, it is pretty much tack sharp across the frame except for perhaps a very tiny area in the extreme corners on my unmodded A7r.
Love your examples! This is exactly what I like about the lens.
Also keep in mind, this lens seems to behave quite differently depending on what system it is used on. When I tested it on Sony, I was surprised at how much more 'normal' it behaved vs. on Leica digital M. Way less field curvature with Sony and one of the better ~35mm lenses I tried. But the thing is, compared to higher-tech lenses that are already sharp across the frame by f/4-5.6, having to stop down past f/8 is a bit of a letdown if you need that kind of technical perfomance. But it's a difficult lens to beat for the price, at least in RF.
Regarding the new Ultron… there are some real world samples trickling out now and I would wait for more from Sony users if you're shooting that system. The digital M examples have looked quite good, but at least one a7S set on Flickr is not so reassuring, with some funky edge effects and possble field curvature I haven't seen in M examples.
I enjoyed the unique way it rendered, but ultimately missed too many shots due to my own lack of focus precision. Same reason I ended up selling my otherwise stellar 50/1.5.
I now have my A7II setup with the rear AF/MF button being eye detect AF. I press a button and have the focus locked on the eyes, anywhere in the frame, in (excuse the pun) the blind of an eye.
I totally get some of the photographic enjoyment of MF, the feel of a precision helicoil under ones fingers etc etc. BUT, at the same time, the ability to get basically flawless critical focus each and every time by using a lens like the 35/2.8 FE instead certainly has its benefits.
With my 50/1.5 wide open I'd maybe nail 1 out of 10 shots in casual shooting, ie; not having my subjects hold still forever while I mess with focusing and checking focus, repeat etc. (They aren't too patient for that lol)
With my 55/1.8 FE and face/eye detect, I get more like 9 out of 10 shots in focus, even wide open.
Just depends what the end goal is I suppose...do I want to simply enjoy the act of shooting, regardless of outcome, or I want to come home with a high percent of keepers.
I know some folks can manage both, and I'm in no way blaming the gear, but for me, MF really only works on a tripod and for static scenes where I can take the time needed.
Family, anything dynamic, I need AF or else I miss way more than I hit
These were my thoughts almost exactly. I completely understand the desire to use MF lenses; but, with the advent of "eye focus" that works well, use of a fast AF prime is the way to go for more keepers. Especially when you are taking shots of kids, family etc...who have limited patience for retakes when the focus is not nailed on the first shot. Again, I have and love my MF lenses; however, eye focus really works well and has me reassessing the gear I would like to use with portraits and thin DOF.
arstein wrote:
Curious, which adapter are you using with your Voigtl.40mm 1.4
Thanks..
I have the VME Close Focus, the VME-I, and the Fotasy LM-NEX. The Fotasy seems to be dead on for infinity focus, whereas the VME adpaters have infinity focus a bit down the distance scale on both my 40/1.4 and 15/4.5-III.
galenapass wrote:
These were my thoughts almost exactly. I completely understand the desire to use MF lenses; but, with the advent of "eye focus" that works well, use of a fast AF prime is the way to go for more keepers. Especially when you are taking shots of kids, family etc...who have limited patience for retakes when the focus is not nailed on the first shot. Again, I have and love my MF lenses; however, eye focus really works well and has me reassessing the gear I would like to use with portraits and thin DOF.
Yes, I need to get at least one AF lens for my A7RII I suppose - the 35/2.8 likely. The 55/1.8 seems to be killer, but 55mm on FX is not the best for me as I prefer slightly wider "normal" lenses on my bodies. I have not tried out the eye AF - perhaps I should trek to the local pro shop to try one out.
